CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   511 25.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Russia and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 13 Konstantin Popov v. Bulgaria (application no. 15035/03) The applicant, Konstantin Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Saedinenie (Bulgaria). Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that the prison authorities opened and checked his correspondence with his counsel in relation to criminal proceedings against him. The European Court of Human Rights noted that it had already held that systematic monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence by the authorities in Bulgaria had been in breach of Article   8 of the Convention; it saw no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8. It further held that there had been no violation of Article   13. The Court awarded Mr   Popov 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Titovi v. Bulgaria (no. 3475/03) The applicants, Venka Titova, and her husband, Petko Titov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1964 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Petko Titov complained of the conditions and excessive length of his pre-trial detention on charges of counterfeit. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the length – one year and five days – and lack of sufficient justification for   Petko Titov’s pre-trial detention. The Court awarded Petko Titov EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Stoyanova-Tsakova v. Bulgaria (no. 17967/03) The applicant, Margarita Viktorova Stoyanova-Tsakova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms   Stoyanova-Tsakova complained about the unfairness of proceedings concerning a dispute with her former husband over the use of a flat. The Court found no evidence to suggest, as alleged by the applicant, that the Supreme Court had failed to examine with due care the memorial filed by her counsel before deciding her case. The applicant’s misgivings on that point, not shared by her counsel and based entirely on what appeared to have been a clerical mistake in the court’s judgment, could not be considered as objectively justified. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Maresti v. Croatia (no. 55759/07) The applicant, Armando Maresti, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Pazin (Croatia). In 2005 he was found guilty of particularly offensive behaviour in a public place. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr   Maresti alleged that the court’s decisions dismissing his request for extraordinary review of the final judgment against him as time-barred were erroneous and that he was tried and convicted twice for the same offence. The Court found that the judge who decided to refuse the applicant’s appeal should have taken into account the date on which the judgment against him had been served on his counsel and not on his mentally ill mother, whose capacity to understand the judgment and pass it on to her son was open to doubt. The Court therefore found that the applicant had not been given access to court in respect of his request for extraordinary review and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1. The Court further noted that it was obvious that the police had lodged a request for criminal proceedings to be brought against the applicant both before Pazin Minor-Offences Court and had submitted a report on the same incident with Pazin State Attorney’s Office; that had resulted in the applicant having been prosecuted twice. Nor had the domestic authorities remedied the situation on appeal. There had therefore been a violation of Article   4 of Protocol No.   7. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Mr   Maresti was awarded EUR   4,100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 13 Bakhmutskiy v. Russia (no. 36932/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Ivanovich Bakhmutskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and is currently serving a   13-year prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Rostov Region (Russia) for, among other offences, fraud, kidnapping, extortion, theft and burglary. The case concerned Mr   Bakhmutskiy’s complaints about the appalling conditions, unlawfulness and excessive length   of his detention as well as deficiencies in its judicial review. He also alleged that   the length of the   criminal proceedings against him had been excessive. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security),   Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court found the fact that, during his pre-trial detention in Rostov-on-Don, Mr   Bakhmutskiy had been obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell – with less than 1 sq m 2 of personal space – as so many other inmates for almost six years had itself been sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him, in violation of Article   3. It further held that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy for him to complain about those conditions of his detention. It also held that there had been: a violation of Article   5   §   1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 12   February to 1   July 2002; no violation of this article on account of his detention from 1   July 2002 to 17   May 2004; a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length of Mr   Bakhmutskiy’s detention, the accumulated periods amounting to almost four years; and, a violation of Article   5   §   4 regarding the discontinuation of the examination of his appeal against an extension order made in February 2004. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   13 in respect of the excessive length – just over six years and ten months – of the proceedings. Mr   Bakhmutskiy was awarded EUR   40,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   (Three of the applicants) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Three of the applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gyuleva and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 76963/01) The Court found the above violations in this case on account of the applicants having lost their property following the application of restitution legislation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the cases of Vujčić and Zaytsev and Others the applicants also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Vujčić v. Croatia (no. 33867/06) Zaytsev and Others v. Russia (no. 42046/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Blage Ilievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 39538/03) Josifov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 37812/04)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.